PUCO: IGS Energy can continue to use 'Columbia' name

Wednesday

Aug 15, 2012 at 12:01 AMAug 15, 2012 at 7:09 PM

IGS Energy is not breaking any rules by using the name Columbia Retail Energy to market natural-gas contracts, utility regulators ruled today as they dismissed a complaint that alleged that the " Columbia Retail" name was confusingly similar to that of the utility, Columbia Gas. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio said the groups filing the complaint "have not met their burden of proof."

Dan Gearino, The Columbus Dispatch

IGS Energy is not breaking any rules by using the name Columbia Retail Energy to market natural-gas contracts, utility regulators ruled today as they dismissed a complaint that alleged that the “ Columbia Retail” name was confusingly similar to that of the utility, Columbia Gas.

The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio said the groups filing the complaint “have not met their burden of proof.”

Several groups, including the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, Stand Energy and the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council, filed the complaint in October 2010. That was shortly after IGS had reached an agreement with NiSource, the parent of Columbia Gas of Ohio, to license the Columbia name and logo.

The groups contended that IGS’ use of the Columbia name would make customers think they were dealing with the utility

Dublin-based IGS is an energy marketer, a company that sells unregulated gas and electricity contracts.

Ohio law says that a rate-regulated utility, such as Columbia Gas, can use its name for unregulated energy marketing if the marketer is part of the same corporation as the utility.

The parties filing the complaint argued that the law does not allow a utility to license its name to an unaffiliated company, which is what happened with IGS and NiSource.

Several of the participants had raised concerns that the PUCO was taking too long to reach a decision. It has been nearly two years since the initial filing, during which IGS has continued to use the Columbia Retail name.

Todd Snitchler, the PUCO chairman, said the commission waited while several of the parties were trying to negotiate a settlement, efforts that turned out to be unsuccessful.

The key issue, he said, was that the case record included too little evidence that customers were confused.